Webb GI Bill Passes Senate, 75-22

By: Lowell
Published On: 5/22/2008 1:10:12 PM

Great news for our veterans, as the U.S. Senate voted 75-22 this morning for Jim Webb's expanded GI Bill.  This is just one example of why we wanted Jim Webb in the U.S. Senate, and just one of many reasons why he'd make such a great running mate for Barack Obama.  Thank you Jim Webb!

P.S. Oh yeah, and where was John McSame today?  In California, apparently.  Priorities, priorities.

UPDATE: My notes on the just-concluded conference call with Senators Warner and Webb are in the comments section.

UPDATE #2: Barack Obama says:

I respect Sen. John McCain's service to our country. He is one of those heroes of which I speak. But I can't understand why he would line up behind the President in his opposition to this GI bill.

I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the President more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.

And McCain acts like a fool once again.

UPDATE this is teacherken - I have added my remarks in a comment in response to that Lowell posted summarizing the conference call

Comments



Webb's been appearing everywhere (Catzmaw - 5/22/2008 1:34:58 PM)
to promote this bill, and I'll bet people were lighting up their Senate offices to get their Senators on board, too.  He's had more appearances on different news outlets than you can shake a stick at, leaving his hosts impressed and supportive at every turn.  He's also done more to explain Obama's "poor, white working class" issue than any of the overpaid pundits who've been pontificating on the matter.  He's taken the opportunity to speak up for the people of the Appalachian communities and taken away the old "Billy Joe ain't like him no black people" crap the know-nothing chattering class has been promoting.  Whether or not he's Obama's VP, we need Webb to go on the campaign trail and pave the way for Obama.  This is the opportunity he's been hoping for to have the voices of the poor, white, rural people be heard and their concerns addressed.  This is their opportunity to understand that it really doesn't have to be about guns, God, and gays.  It can be about the economy and education for all.  

Congratulations on a job well done for our veterans!



And look who triggered ... (j_wyatt - 5/22/2008 9:58:30 PM)
this first genuine clash of the two presidential candidates.

Jim Webb is smack dab in the middle of this epochal election.  It's no coincidence, it's not politicking, it's history being made.

"I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans," McCain said. "And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did."

"It is typical, but no less offensive, that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said.

So, per Senator McCain, his military service provides immunity from criticism on any of his stands concerning war and the armed forces?  Man, this is going to be fun.

Go get 'em, Senator Webb.

 



Good Job! (relawson - 5/22/2008 2:10:21 PM)
One more notch on the belt.  Now, healthcare, the economy, Iraq, ...  lots of work, too little time, too many lobbyists.


Who Are the 22 Boobs Who Voted No? (Matt H - 5/22/2008 2:21:23 PM)
Obviously they are not real patriots.


Soldiers might not re-up (Teddy - 5/22/2008 3:04:13 PM)
said those 22 ninnies, if the soldiers realized they could actually get an education when their enlistment was completed. That's what McCain and the White House said. Of course, this ignores the fact that many young people who would not have enlisted might now do so in anticipation of getting the education benefits on completion of service.

Those 22 ninnies were simply toeing the republican line in the sand, which is as follows: only an indigent damnfool would volunteer for military duty in time of war (never mind patriotism here), and we have to have a poor economy and unemployment staring them in the face to induce them to volunteer, and to keep on re-upping; any carrot offering hope of a brighter future, and any opportunity to improve their prospects through education will short circuit this plan, so NO! to the GI Bill.  Not to mention the ancillary policy: billions in no bid contracts for Halliburtion, but not even a couple million for the silly troops doing the dirty work of actually fighting.

What a sorry clutch of B****rds the republicans are: Always Prefer Money Over People. May they rot.



Teddy I not so sure its that extreme (Alter of Freedom - 5/22/2008 6:53:18 PM)
As a veteran I fully understand and commend those that sought more. I disagree with Obama's claim really that it was about being "too generous" but rather I agree with som eof the Republicans, mostly vets themselves by the way, that understand how the benefit structure works in the military. Lets face it there is a class structure in our military whether we want to admit it or not, ie the officer class and the enlisted class. Who are we really concerned with in terms of enlistments?
Many folks here with whom I respect really have not taken the time to break this issue down fundamentally in terms of how the military works from a cost of training basis when looking at these things. Training has never cost more than today. Re-training in the era of close quarters, think SWAT training, for these units is expensive and we have not seen this level on concentration before.
Factor this, how much does it cost to send an enlisted Marine for up to 16 weeks to Paris Island? Then send him to his MOS school for sometimes up to a year in a half (airwing marines like air traffic control/fire/rescue etc) then onto to his fist duty station...we are well into the avergae four year committment. We then pay that Marine at enlisted levels. How much has the tax payer invested in this Marine by now and after four years we given this Marine the option to leave and take advantage of the GI Bill with levels of upwards of fifty thousand more tax payer dollars. From a cost standpoint it makes no sense, from a compassionate, emotional, patriotic heart-tugging position it makes all the feel good bills possible.
Does this bill feel good? Of course. Do we all want to see a real beneficial bill for vets from the point of care, education and long term insurance of course we do.
I think some of the provision should have included more service requirements, we can argue about the deployment periods b/c I think Webb is dead on on that point, but interm of benefits it makes little sense from a cost standpoint to not at the very least require six or eight years minimum of service and then scale them higher with more service.
Amazingly no one here seems to want to enage in the debate over "tranferability" of benefits to child or spouse that was left out or promoted nor putting in real service provisions on any of the previous threads.
The tactical nature and politcial posturing of Pelosi not to allow the other GI bill prposed to come onto the floor is another point but the bill that was passed will was not a full measure but a start. Hopefully it can be amended to inlcude transferability down the line.


Transferrability is included (Teddy - 5/22/2008 9:37:57 PM)
in Webb's bill, as I understand it, as a result of his and Warner's discussions with other Senators and veterans' organisations. You are correct about the class structure---- I grew up in the Army, beginning with the brown shoe Army of Sam Browne belts and pinks and greens. As for cost of training, that has skyrocketed also, true, and that goes for decent jobs in private enterprise as well, not to mention the cost of recruitment. Tell me any complicated enterprise today that doesn't "cost more." Heh.

My distaste for the Administration's position on the Webb GI Bill is what I consider to be the true reasons for their attitude, which betray their elitist class mentality, not to mention Bush's basic misunderstanding of the military, and his frightening willingness to employ force first in responding to a perceived problem (domestic as well as foreign). I simply do not trust the man and his minions.



Very good point (Alter of Freedom - 5/22/2008 10:39:41 PM)
My only arguement would be that much if not all of that criticsm should be or have been laid at the foot of Rumsfeld and not so much Bush. I know he should take the reponsibility, but since he has no real military service he would not know that is what leaders above tend to have to do. Rumsfeld's vision and plan for our forces was misguided and most likely set our DOD back a decade in my book in terms of unit cohesion and functionality.


Transferring Benefits - Good Judgement (norman swingvoter - 5/23/2008 1:23:17 PM)
Transferring Benefits - If you want to encourage people to stay in the military, one thing you could do would be to allow transferring a percentage of the benefit to family members, based on the years of service. If a person only was in for 1 enlistment, the benefit would be for him/her only.  As the number of enlistment periods increased, a percentage of the benefit could be used for other family members.  At retirement 100% could be used. You would have to allow for those killed in service also.

Good Judgement - bush should be the primary one held responsible. It's called Good Judgement.  As the leader bush chooses who to go with and is held responsible for the outcome. He chose going with Rumsfeld on an unproven theoretical course.  



Teacherken and I (Lowell - 5/22/2008 3:42:11 PM)
were just on a conference call with Senators Webb and Warner about the GI Bill.  Here are my notes, Ken will probably have more to add later...

Sen. Warner
Since Webb is a platoon leader and I'm a sergeant, I'm going to let the leader lead off.

Sen. Webb
Pleased to discuss efforts we've made together...people serving since 9/11 to bring type of benefits they deserve.  Sen. Warner has been a great partner on this.  When people talk about how government is fractured, we've shown how we can work together.  We got 75 votes affirmative to move this legislation to the president.  We're very hopeful he will not veto that.

Warner
If he were to veto it, we'd renew all our efforts.

Webb
One way or the other, we're going to get this through. Worked for 16 months with all the veterans groups.  More than 300 sponsors in the House, including 91 Republicans.  Cosponsors Carl Levin, Sen. Warner, Sen. Akaka (Veterans Committee chair). Sen. Specter, Sen. Hagel.  We've got a serious bill here and we want it to become law. Every major veterans organization has worked with us to improve this bill and we have their full support.

Warner
Armed Services Bill in late June, we'll put this on that bill if necessary.  Transferability - answers to some extent the concerns of the Sec. Def. about retention.  Provides that a serviceperson who completed first 4 years, if they reenlist for 6 years, he gets another 18 months...then 36 months of GI Bill.  It's flat out erroneous that this cancels out other benefits.

Webb
Some of this has become lost in the way that Sen. Graham and some other people have expressed their concerns about retention.  The vast majority of people in US military leave on or before the end of their first enlistment.  These are the folks most in need of quality educational assistance as they transition into their lives as civilians.  We will allow career people to transfer benefits when they reenlist.

Warner
This was Webb's #1 priority when he joined the Senate.  The Montgomery GI Bill doesn't provide enough financial assistance to provide college education just about anywhere in America.  Need to augment funding.  Analogy to Pell Grant program...in operation for 18 years.  As the years went on, Congress raised Pell benefits but not GI benefits.  Pell is $19 billion in '09 budget.  We're trying to raise the benefits.  Any GI today should hope to aspire to go to college of his or her choice assuming academic credentials are acceptable.  Some of the leading universities never see a GI today, they simply don't have the funds.

Hank Silverberg question.  What took so long? When will this take effect?

Webb: It would take effect when President signs it. Period of implementation. After 9/11, operational tempo of the military changed, I kept wondering when GI educational benefits would change.  I promised during the campaign that I'd introduce this on Day #1, and I did.

Warner:  In 2001, the Armed Service Committee passed transferability for spouses.  DoD never stepped up.

Webb: The benchmark was great GI Bill legislation in WWII.  Tuition, books, monthly stipend - that was our model.  

David Lehrman Daily Press:  This benefit will far outlive Iraq war.  If Bush vetoes, wouldn't he have a point that it's not paid for.

Webb:  When people characterize this as a new entitlement program, they need to understand that this is sunsetted...you have a number of years to use it.  Readjustment benefit to assist people. You have 15 years to use it or lose it.  At 3 years of service you're fully vested in this program.  This is a cost of war.  Every GI Bill from World War II forward has had sunset provision.  Would expect this to end when the war ends.

Warner: It's service-wide.

Question about this raising Webb's national profile.

Webb: I don't proceed with what I do here on that basis.  

Warner:  In 6 months and 7 days he becomes Senior Senator.

Dale Eisman: What about people who have no interest in going to college?

Webb: Laughs - we can't solve every problem of human motivation.  Here's your chance.  WWII GI Bill -- for every tax dollar spent, seven came back.  This bill provides on the job training.

Warner: Follows the same approach as 1944 GI bill, 1953 bill, and subsequent ones. It's a global economy, we're in fierce competition around the world.  We need this advanced training by those who are willing to step up for it.



Lowell has an accurate summary (teacherken - 5/22/2008 4:32:07 PM)
better than I could have given.

Let me note that the question about raising his profile is unavoidable nowadays.  The simultaneity of his book release and the action on his bill  has meant that he has been highly visible, and on all occasions he will be asked about VP and related . . .    as I told Lowell, this was a non-denial denial without being rude, while returning to the subject at hand.

Let me add a few remarks.  There were questions about how long this would be in effect, sunset provisions and the like.  As one who benefited from the Vietnam era GI bill, benefits are offered to those who serve during a time of active conflict -  previous bills applied to service in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.  And there is usually an end date by which one can use the benefits - in my case, one had to be enrolled in College by 8 years after discharge in order to use the educational benefits, although the benefits for housing extended further - I was discharged in 1966 and bought my house in 1982 with a VA backed mortgage.  

I have not read the bill, but listening to Webb and Warner, they did make some modifications to meet the concerns of others.  I like the fact that the earned benefits can be applied to spouses or children as well as the service member.   And Webb mentioned some ability to apply benefits to On the Job training.

My guess is that in an election  year, anyone facing the voters is likely to vote for passage, and would have a hard time not supporting a veto override.   I'm not sure that means we will be able to hold 67 votes in the Senate, but it at least makes it feasible.

And now I have to go on the phone to go on the radio, so please forgive me.  



By Webb's own account (Alter of Freedom - 5/22/2008 6:59:15 PM)
he states that majority of folks leave before the end or at the end of the first enlistment. Why is that?
This goes to the point there are serious "business" problems we need to face up to in the military. And though this bill is a start we need to ask ourselves WHY are they leaving?
Again the costs of training are crazy now. If you in your business or Microsoft, Oracle, Google etc had that kind of turnover a majority (just like our military) of revenues would be going to training.
Retention of course is a problem and important but not so much as in this bill per say. It needs to be addressed in other areas of quality of life issues of our military and more importantly the families left behind.
Maybe we ought to also be looking at things to benefit them while they are still serving and not merely when they leave.


I just read McCain's statement (Catzmaw - 5/22/2008 4:05:04 PM)
Is he off his nut?  Forget it, that's a rhetorical question.  He really slams Obama for supporting this bill, practically foaming at the mouth and talking about what an idiot Obama is for supporting it, that it will do incalculable harm to our military, etc., etc.  Ummm, does he understand that he's basically calling Webb a fool for proposing this thing?  That he's accusing Webb of hurting the country by putting it out there?  And Hagel?  And Warner? and all the other supporters from both sides of the aisle?  


Yes, McCain just called 75 US Senators (Lowell - 5/22/2008 4:06:07 PM)
nuts. No wonder why he never shows his face there.


Here are the "nay" votes (Lowell - 5/22/2008 4:09:24 PM)
All Republicans...yeah, those guys who say they "support the troops."

NAYs ---22
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bennett (R-UT)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Voinovich (R-OH)



Scorecard (Ron1 - 5/22/2008 5:13:10 PM)
8 of these bad guys (note: all men) are up for reelection this year: Alexander, Barrasso, Cochran, Cornyn, Enzi, Graham, McConnell, and Sessions.

1 is retiring: Allard.

2 are expected to retire after serving out his term that ends in January, 2011: Brownback, Bunning.

6 are up for reelection in 2010: Bennett/Hatch (I don't know which one), Burr, DeMint, Grassley, Gregg, Voinovich.

5 were (re)elected in 2006 with Webb: Corker, Ensign, Hatch/Bennett, Kyl, Lugar.

This is one of those votes that should be used to rhetorically tar and feather these clowns.



Rhetorically ? I want literally. I'll bring the tar. Who'll bring the chicken hawk feathers ? (Tom Counts - 5/22/2008 11:19:05 PM)


Compare the list of "nay" votes to the list of competitive 2008 senate races (snolan - 5/22/2008 5:25:03 PM)
Only one Senator comes up...

Cornyn (R-TX) is being challenged by Noriega (D) who is polling close enough to be within the margin of error...

We should be able to go after Cornyn on this issue though.  I am sure Texans like to support veterans as much as we do!



Funny thing these guys---alot of bases in those states (Alter of Freedom - 5/22/2008 7:01:58 PM)
Take a look at the map of bases. Alot are in these States. What does that say if anyhting with regard to this? Are they putting Party politics over the home folks? We shall see in November.


A tough day for McCain (aznew - 5/22/2008 4:48:53 PM)
The Hagee endorsement, the disclosure that the Rev. Parsley has said Islam is a false religion, the Virginia poll and now the GI Bill.

Could just be that famous temper of his getting ready to blow.

Could also be an effort to try to overshadow whichever of these stories is going to dominate the talk shows tonight, especially on Fox, or at least give Bill-O and Hannity something else to talk about.



Here's the Parsley story (Lowell - 5/22/2008 4:49:37 PM)


McCain does not seem to vet people very well (teacherken - 5/22/2008 5:14:50 PM)
he has lobbyists all over his campaign, starting with Rick Davis and Charlie Black, both of whom have had clients who are at least questionable and in some case downright objectionable

He actively sought the endorsements of both Hagee and Parsley -  he may now have distanced himself from Hagee, but so far not from Parsley.  And if he distances from both, might that undercut all the pandering he did to reach out to the religious right?  

What does it say about his judgment?  We need to constantly raise that question.



Our Founding Fathers were trying to destroy Islam (Catzmaw - 5/22/2008 5:34:44 PM)
by establishing the United States??? Huh?

Boy, looking at this guy ranting, he doesn't seem very Jesus-y to me.  Is that a requirement for Christian ministry anymore or maybe is it not so much?  Just asking.

Another winning argument for McCain.  



That's not something I ever learned (Lowell - 5/22/2008 5:37:35 PM)
in history class.  Anyone else have Rod Parsley as their social studies teacher?


He only said, "in part," Catzmaw (aznew - 5/22/2008 5:56:41 PM)
Sheesh. Quit the deception, will ya? Next thing you know, you'll be saying John McCain said we could keep troops in Iraq for 100 years.


Ya caught me! (Catzmaw - 5/22/2008 6:29:57 PM)
Oh, me and my liberal-media inspired bias.  If only Bill-O were here to set me right ... wing ... nuts! ;)


this guy's medieval (j_wyatt - 5/22/2008 5:53:34 PM)
The amusing thing about these drooling fools is they have no comprehension at all that they are the mirror image of Islamic fundamentalists who say the exact same thing about Christians.

I will rail against anyone who says the God of Christianity is the God of Islam!

Again, for the irony deficient:



Hagee (tx2vadem - 5/22/2008 8:52:50 PM)
It appears you have to say that Nazism and Hitler's persecution of Jews were God's will in order to get John McCain to reject your endorsement.  Bashing Roman Catholics and Muslims is okay though.  Nice.


Retention of non-Commissioned Officers (Teddy - 5/22/2008 6:49:45 PM)
is at this time a real problem, which is one of Senator McCain's points, to be fair... but I do not believe that Webb's GI bill would adversely impact the retention problem. We also have a problem with retention of junior (company grade) officers, and the brain drain is reaching alarming proportions, with some experienced observers warning us that our future flag officers will be chosen from among those who do remain in the military, and that that pool is increasingly composed of the second rate and often of the politically motivated religious nuts, (though they are not called that, but an examination of the record implies they belong to the evangelical fringe which seeks Appocalypse).  

Be that as it may, we are indeed losing the basic leadership core, and it is not because of GI benefits or lack thereof. It is due to stop loss, repeated tours in Iraq with reduced dwell time at home, and, what the White House and McCain cannot admit, a pervasive loss of trust in and respect for our civilian leadership. The non-coms and officers in question, doing the dirty work at tactical level, are simply fed up and disgusted.  Webb's GI bill is far more likely to restore the faith and motivation of these people than it is to harm recruitment and retention.  McCain is the one demagoguing here.



Retention. . . (buzzbolt - 5/22/2008 8:01:16 PM)
It is absurd for McCain and Bush to suggest that retention will decline because of a generous GI bill.  Retention in the military is already a massive failure even before Webb's bill becomes law.

*  The Army Chief of Staff has expressed alarmed concern over the increase in desertions and suicide.

*  The divorce rate in the active duty Army is presently above 70%.

*  Thousands of volunteer soldiers are being sent for their 3rd and 4th tours of duty in Iraq.

*  Those who survive can look forward to a 6 to 8 month stateside visit before their next tour begins.

*  Iraq veterans have been showing up in homeless shelters for over 4 years.

*  Soldiers who are reluctant to re-enlist are quickly and noticeably transferred to units ready to redeploy to Iraq.

*  Soldiers who have completed their contractual enlistment obligation are denied the discharge they have earned.

*  Soldiers and Marines in Reserve units in Iraq receive far fewer promotions than their counterparts in Active units.  Congress members hear this complaint daily.

*  Soldiers on active duty are suffering severe emotional, psychological, and post-traumatic stress disorders.

*  We are not a nation at war but a nation whose armed services are at war, this fact is well-known and deeply resented among our service members especially when they get alerts for their third and fourth tours.

In this comment the term "soldier" can mean any active duty service member in any and all branches of the armed services.



Press release by Sen. Webb (Lowell - 5/22/2008 5:36:27 PM)
"Today, the Senate took a historic step toward a modern and fair educational benefit for the men and women who have served honorably since 9/11. This bill properly responds to the needs of those who answered the call of duty to our country-those who moved toward the sound of the guns-often at great sacrifice.

"Congress today resolutely asserted that it is time for those of us who have been calling on these brave men and women to serve again and again to assist in providing a meaningful chance for a first-class future. This is a bill that is equal to the first-class service that they have given to this country.

"I am gratified by the substantial support we received today in the Senate for this new, robust GI Bill. The effort was only made possible by the solid investment and leadership of my chief cosponsors, Senators Hagel, Lautenberg and Warner, in addition to the unwavering support of our nation's leading veterans' organizations. We were able to forge consensus with four veterans at the helm: two from WWII-Senators Warner and Lautenberg-two from the Vietnam War-myself and Senator Hagel; two Democrats, two Republicans.  

"There are no politics here.  This is about taking care of the people who have taken care of us.

"This measure has been passed overwhelmingly by both houses of Congress.  But, our work is not done here.  I call on the President to put politics aside and do what's right for our nation's newest 'greatest generation' by signing this bill into law."

For more information about the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, please visit:  http://webb.senate.gov/pdf/fac...

A video feed of today's press conference with Senators Webb and Warner is available via Pathfire. For instructions to access to the Pathfire feed, please go to:  http://democrats.senate.gov/tv...

To download select audio from today's press conference, please go to:  http://demradio.senate.gov/act...



What a Disgrace! (Rick O'Dell - 5/22/2008 9:08:23 PM)
Twenty-two Republican senators, and John McCain who was too busy raising money to vote, cast a vote against educating our veterans. These senators have disgraced the constituents they serve and the party to which they cow-tow.

In real dollars, my Vietnam-era GI Bill was worth about a third as the same benefit for my father's World War II generation.  The Webb-Hagel GI Bill brings back America's time-honored investment in its future by educating those who have made a personal investment in our country.

The Republican Party wants today's young men and women in uniform to serve multiple enlistments. They are offered a career in uniform without regard to their education beyond the needs of the armed services.  I believe those who successfully serve in uniform are among our best and brightest.  Educating them for success after uniformed service is both good for them and for the nation they have so faithfully served.

Totally overlooked in the Pentagon's and Republican argument that the Webb-Hagel GI Bill will chill reenlistments is its impact on attracting new recruits.  For the first time since World War II, those who serve can do so in exchange for a college education.  It is a good exchange that will bring into the ranks highly motivated and intellingent young men and women intent on doing their duty and doing it well.

I wonder how many of my fellow Vietnam veterans would have been more successful had they been fortunate enough to have the same opportunity. Likewise, I would remind my fellow veterans that John McCain received his free college education at the U. S. Naval Academy.  He was an Annapolis legacy of a father and grand-father who were admirals.

McCain got his degree at government expense before he ever saw a day of active military duty. That he would deny a post-service education to those who have honorably served is a disgrace and a blight on his character.